5 ms·

I don't think there's that much disagreement over the effectiveness of blockchain for managing decentralized ledgers (cryptocurrencies). There's rather more con

I don't think there's that much disagreement over the effectiveness of blockchain for managing decentralized ledgers (cryptocurrencies). There's rather more contention about the applicability of blockchain to other spaces.

sp527 8y ago
I think this should be rephrased as: the disagreement is entirely over what happens when you introduce humans (and, even more specifically, human behavior). The math is theoretically sound. Anyone disagreeing with that is a fool. A good example is the argument over network control. The mathematics of blockchain very precisely describe what percentage of accumulated mining power introduces the opportunity to defeat distributed consensus. But it's the fact that there is a human behavioral incentive to try and accumulate that aggregate mining power that might be a real problem, not the math. Granted that's a low likelihood event. This dichotomy emerges in countless different facets of blockchain, and I think is the simplest way of delineating the line between believers and naysayers.
- asynchrony 8y ago
  In my mind the main contention is the difference between assets that exist entirely within the ledger (BTC, ETH, CryptoKitties) and assets that purport to reliably track some physical asset. Mathematical certainties about cryptographic security don't help reconcile the reality of meatspace with the state of the ledger.
dnautics 8y ago
> I don't think there's that much disagreement over the effectiveness of blockchain for managing decentralized ledgers (cryptocurrencies) Agreed. A lot of people have forgotten to ask the question - do I really need a decentralized and trustless ledger?
- mirimir 8y ago
  Fundamentally, so it can't be taken down or pwned.
  - asynchrony 8y ago
    Do I need a ledger? Do I need to other people to trust what I write on the ledger? Do I need to trust what other people write on the ledger? Is it possible to trust what is written on the ledger in relation to what I actually care about? I haven't heard any convincing yes answers to all of these questions outside of financial instruments.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      For decentralized payment systems, it's obviously essential. But there is no general answer. It depends on the circumstances.
      - rtpg 8y ago
        Cash is a decentralized payment system for most intents. So the question becomes: Do I need a digital decentralized payment system? Does one need them? One fairly strong legitimate use case is people who are consistently shunned by credit card networks. Lots of people working in adult industries, weed (in states where it's legal), certain high risk spaces... though _even then_ it's not about decentralization, just abut needing some form of competition (debit card network?) Meanwhile there are real costs to the decentralized networks
        mirimir 8y ago
        You don't need a digital decentralized payment system for cash. At least, if cash transactions are all in person. But once you start mailing cash around, and having agents transport cash, a decentralized distributed-trust leger might be useful.
        rtpg 8y ago
        Yes, that's a good point. If you have a certain number of trust points you could use a decentralized ledger to effectively build a banking system where you still get cash out of it. Suffice to say that this would likely be very against a bunch of KYC money laundering laws, but it's a decent trick
- novalis78 8y ago
  An >immutable< ledger helped me wrap my head around it better. The immutability makes software chip away at arenas that traditionally are the providence of law/contract/social/administrative/governance institutions. It allows for replacing middle men and automate processes that were locked up in the only form of "trust" that we knew how to facilitate (via layers of humans).
  - dnautics 8y ago
    all ledgers imply relative immutability, with the security of the immutability having a cost that is dependent on the security level. There's a really large cost to having the immutability level of the blockchain. Is it worth it? Probably not in most cases.
luckydata 8y ago
I think the real question nobody has managed to answer successfully is "what do I need a decentralized ledger for?".
- passwordreset 8y ago
  I think that's been greatly covered. Consensus.
  - jonny_eh 8y ago
    That's like saying that a fladger is clearly valuable… for fladging!
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
ThomPete 8y ago
Networked consencus. You want to have a 2ndhand market for digital assets, this is perfect for that, you want to build truly denctralized digital identity, this is perfect. Its basically a history layer on top of TCP/IP.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  > You want to have a 2ndhand market for digital assets, this is perfect for that Why do I want that? > you want to build truly denctralized digital identity, this is perfect That sounds useful. The technique of using a blockchain for distributed consensus has been around a long time now; why hasn't this killer app identity system emerged yet? > Its basically a history layer on top of TCP/IP That doesn't seem accurate. Do you mean that it could be that? Is there any chance of scaling a blockchain to that level of activity?
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Why do people do Pokemon cards? Why do you expect digital identity to be solved by blockchain in just 10 years with only the last 3 of them having had any serious investments. Not sure what universal rule it is you think it's not following. It's accurate in perspective of both 2nd hand market and digital identity. The network is the concensus model that validates the history of the transactions and allow you to claim if something is historically an ebook owned by Bill-Gates or not. If you don't think that's valuable you haven't spend enough time in the artmarket to understand how humans apply value to things of basically no actual value (other than what other humans apply to it)
    - sanderjd 8y ago
      The thing I find odd (and unexciting) about the second-hand market thing is that appears to be to be fighting technology rather than innovating. We already have scarcity in the real world. One of the most interesting and powerful things about the digital world is that it scarcity does not exist. If I squint hard enough I can see this sort of thing being successful, but it seems like a step backward instead of forward. My question in the identity system was actually an honest one (though I don't blame you for having me pegged as a skeptic and answering as such): why isn't this a thing yet? 10 years seems like a long time; 3 years seems like long enough for me to have heard of at least one promising work in progress system. What are the challenges?

sp527 8y ago

I think this should be rephrased as: the disagreement is entirely over what happens when you introduce humans (and, even more specifically, human behavior). The math is theoretically sound. Anyone disagreeing with that is a fool. A good example is the argument over network control. The mathematics of blockchain very precisely describe what percentage of accumulated mining power introduces the opportunity to defeat distributed consensus. But it's the fact that there is a human behavioral incentive to try and accumulate that aggregate mining power that might be a real problem, not the math. Granted that's a low likelihood event. This dichotomy emerges in countless different facets of blockchain, and I think is the simplest way of delineating the line between believers and naysayers.

asynchrony 8y ago
In my mind the main contention is the difference between assets that exist entirely within the ledger (BTC, ETH, CryptoKitties) and assets that purport to reliably track some physical asset. Mathematical certainties about cryptographic security don't help reconcile the reality of meatspace with the state of the ledger.

dnautics 8y ago

> I don't think there's that much disagreement over the effectiveness of blockchain for managing decentralized ledgers (cryptocurrencies) Agreed. A lot of people have forgotten to ask the question - do I really need a decentralized and trustless ledger?

mirimir 8y ago
Fundamentally, so it can't be taken down or pwned.
- asynchrony 8y ago
  Do I need a ledger? Do I need to other people to trust what I write on the ledger? Do I need to trust what other people write on the ledger? Is it possible to trust what is written on the ledger in relation to what I actually care about? I haven't heard any convincing yes answers to all of these questions outside of financial instruments.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    For decentralized payment systems, it's obviously essential. But there is no general answer. It depends on the circumstances.
    - rtpg 8y ago
      Cash is a decentralized payment system for most intents. So the question becomes: Do I need a digital decentralized payment system? Does one need them? One fairly strong legitimate use case is people who are consistently shunned by credit card networks. Lots of people working in adult industries, weed (in states where it's legal), certain high risk spaces... though _even then_ it's not about decentralization, just abut needing some form of competition (debit card network?) Meanwhile there are real costs to the decentralized networks
      - mirimir 8y ago
        You don't need a digital decentralized payment system for cash. At least, if cash transactions are all in person. But once you start mailing cash around, and having agents transport cash, a decentralized distributed-trust leger might be useful.
        rtpg 8y ago
        Yes, that's a good point. If you have a certain number of trust points you could use a decentralized ledger to effectively build a banking system where you still get cash out of it. Suffice to say that this would likely be very against a bunch of KYC money laundering laws, but it's a decent trick
novalis78 8y ago
An >immutable< ledger helped me wrap my head around it better. The immutability makes software chip away at arenas that traditionally are the providence of law/contract/social/administrative/governance institutions. It allows for replacing middle men and automate processes that were locked up in the only form of "trust" that we knew how to facilitate (via layers of humans).
- dnautics 8y ago
  all ledgers imply relative immutability, with the security of the immutability having a cost that is dependent on the security level. There's a really large cost to having the immutability level of the blockchain. Is it worth it? Probably not in most cases.

luckydata 8y ago

I think the real question nobody has managed to answer successfully is "what do I need a decentralized ledger for?".

passwordreset 8y ago
I think that's been greatly covered. Consensus.
- jonny_eh 8y ago
  That's like saying that a fladger is clearly valuable… for fladging!
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

ThomPete 8y ago

Networked consencus. You want to have a 2ndhand market for digital assets, this is perfect for that, you want to build truly denctralized digital identity, this is perfect. Its basically a history layer on top of TCP/IP.

sanderjd 8y ago
> You want to have a 2ndhand market for digital assets, this is perfect for that Why do I want that? > you want to build truly denctralized digital identity, this is perfect That sounds useful. The technique of using a blockchain for distributed consensus has been around a long time now; why hasn't this killer app identity system emerged yet? > Its basically a history layer on top of TCP/IP That doesn't seem accurate. Do you mean that it could be that? Is there any chance of scaling a blockchain to that level of activity?
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Why do people do Pokemon cards? Why do you expect digital identity to be solved by blockchain in just 10 years with only the last 3 of them having had any serious investments. Not sure what universal rule it is you think it's not following. It's accurate in perspective of both 2nd hand market and digital identity. The network is the concensus model that validates the history of the transactions and allow you to claim if something is historically an ebook owned by Bill-Gates or not. If you don't think that's valuable you haven't spend enough time in the artmarket to understand how humans apply value to things of basically no actual value (other than what other humans apply to it)
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    The thing I find odd (and unexciting) about the second-hand market thing is that appears to be to be fighting technology rather than innovating. We already have scarcity in the real world. One of the most interesting and powerful things about the digital world is that it scarcity does not exist. If I squint hard enough I can see this sort of thing being successful, but it seems like a step backward instead of forward. My question in the identity system was actually an honest one (though I don't blame you for having me pegged as a skeptic and answering as such): why isn't this a thing yet? 10 years seems like a long time; 3 years seems like long enough for me to have heard of at least one promising work in progress system. What are the challenges?